Talk:Shabbat

New Sabbath spinout

Having considered the state of Sabbath articles closely, I think there is still one topic to create, namely Biblical Sabbath. Currently this phrase redirects to the summary article "Sabbath" even though that article includes many other Sabbath adaptations that are not Biblical. A new article would compile the Biblical references to Sabbath in a thorough, orderly way, and give all the main viewpoints and interpretations of each passage (compare creation according to Genesis, figs in the Bible, wells in the Bible, etc.). None of the current articles do either of these, because they are quite rightly focused on Sabbath in this or that mainstream viewpoint. However, the notion of "Sabbath as the Bible describes it, without making judgments in favor of any viewpoint" is a topic frequently discussed but lacking. No need to warn me about POV risks, because I am already on duty policing those. It is just my observation that, very often, a WP editor wants to refer just to that notion, "Biblical Sabbath with essentially no POV", and has no recourse to do so (as noted, the summary "Sabbath" article is not Biblically limited, and the Biblically based articles give only one POV each). Particularly, there are many links to "Sabbath" that should very clearly, in context, be directed to Biblical Sabbath, and permitting the weaker link is suboptimal and easily remediable. Also, many of the IP contributors to "Sabbath" would do better to have such a separate article; and some of the debates about where to put this or that apologetic (if at all) would be more readily solved if there were a central article. I will be happy to move this forward, but I wanted to get a couple more opinions first, to confirm my belief that this is a good division of topics. Cross-posted to Shabbat, Sabbath in Christianity, and Sabbath in seventh-day churches. JJB 05:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Lunar Sabbath/"Some prominent rabbis"

I've moved the following section to Talk: for further discussion:

Some prominent rabbis believe Shabbat was originally dependent upon the lunar cycle, with one or two additional unreckoned days.

As is obvious, the first sentence is pure weasel worded POV. Who are these rabbis? What makes them "prominent"? As it happens, I'm the person on Wikipedia who has written the closest thing to a biography on one of them, Isaac Landman. Landman was, in his time, moderately well known known for a combination of things, including his ecumenical work, his political stances, his editing of American Hebrew Magazine, and his publication of his New Universal Jewish Encyclopedia. He was not "prominent" in any particularly scholarly way. The fact that this single, 65 year-old work seems to be the only source for this "lunar sabbath" theory should be a big WP:REDFLAG to editors here that they are giving WP:UNDUE weight to a WP:FRINGE theory. If there are other, scholarly (and more recent) sources that also promote this theory, then I would be happy to re-evaluate. But, as it stands, the material is highly problematic. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg, thanks for that! Actually as you could see I posted that on behalf of a "drive-by" editor who sourced it thoroughly. My goal is simply to collect all POVs, and it seems that two rabbis in a (liberal?) Jewish encyclopedia is a significant POV. I don't think it's useful to classify it as fringe or not. If my words were weasely it's only because I don't know one encyclopedia-publishing rabbi from another. If you'd prefer it as "Two rabbis in NUJE suggest", that seems to stand scrutiny. Or we could group it with the tag I used later in the Sabbath disambiguator, that, "In a distinct minority, some European Reform Jews have moved Sabbath observances to Sunday", which also appears to be an includible POV that should work its way into this article sooner or later.

While I happen to disagree with Landman's conclusion rather vehemently, I don't think it's a theory that should be totally banished from listing. "Writing for the enemy", I leave it ripe for the possibility of demolishing itself by its minority status. By the way, a close version of this theory also appears in the landmark Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, as I documented at Babylonian calendar#Week (ignore the repetition of your objected sentence, of course). They reliably link Sabattu^m with Shabbat, but I could not see them coming all-out on Landman's view that the Babylonians came first; but both Landman and ERE give the same calendrical calculation details. Your statement that this "seems to be the only [Jewish] source" is an argument from silence. From what I know of liberalism in various religions, the IP editor's position, that this is an includible POV, seems entirely credible to me. What would you say is proper weight? JJB 03:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

While it is interesting that there may be theories that are, in your view, similar to Landman's, I'm looking for sources that actually have the same theory. As for an "argument from silence", the onus in this case is to still find sources that support it - again, please see WP:UNDUE, WP:REDFLAG, and WP:FRINGE. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Well Jay, I hope we're not going to pretend that Judaism is monolithic in some way unlike every other religion. We've established that Landman and his contributors, Joseph and Cohen, believe and propound this POV. I've given further unequivocal evidence that ancient lunar-cycled weeks did in fact exist and were named cognate to Shabbat. The issue of weasel words is easily remedied, as above; while your issues of undue weight, red flags, and fringe theory all seem to me to be the same issue, apparently that you don't believe the POV is significant enough to list in any article, even the root "Sabbath" article or the Babylonian article, which has very happily contained all POVs for a long time now. Look, you're saying that the NUJE is an unreliable source, and that burden is really on you, because it would ordinarily be given the benefit of doubt. Really, if you intend to keep this up, it may begin to sound like you refuse WP to report the fact that not all Jews believe in the unbroken Shabbat, as if the much unlikelier claim, monolithic faith, has been proven. JJB 02:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Dlabtot at WP:RSN stated that you did not in fact say that the (N)UJE is an unreliable source. Either it's an RS and thus an includible POV, or it's unreliable and thus there is sourceable evidence of its unreliability. Which? I know you're not really saying to delete an RS just because it's turned 65. Also "New" is not in the title. If I don't hear back I will reinsert in all the articles as follows:

In a minority Jewish view, the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia states that Shabbat was originally dependent upon the lunar cycle, with one or two additional unreckoned days.

Ummm, in a word, no. Just because a viewpoint has been published in a reliable source, does not mean it needs to be included. That's why your colleagues are pointing you to WP:UNDUE, which is just a section of WP:NPOV. Because that is the relevant and applicable policy here. Dlabtot (talk) 02:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposing an origin paragraph

Well, I guess I thought that the majority view was obvious. In that case, all you need is a full and balanced paragraph on "origin of Shabbat". No problem, try my next. JJB 05:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

As Dlabtot has explained, you are presenting a false dichotomy. Please review WP:UNDUE again. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Putting aside all the discussion above, which is important in itself, but I have read and re-read the section on Origin and I find it incomprehensible. I am still trying to work what is the point that is being made.Ewawer (talk) 03:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

OK help me understand here. Which proposition is at fault?

• Jewish views on where Shabbat came from are encyclopedic.
• The Shabbat article is the proper article for these views to appear on WP.
• These views include an origin at creation (literal/fundamentalist), an origin by Mosaic legislation (conservative), a later temple origin attributed backwards to Moses (liberal), or an origin by adapting a Babylonian custom (textual critical).

"Undue" only applies if a view is held by "an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority". You have produced no evidence as to how the views are distributed. I have. What gives?

I came here and I saw a gap and filled it with sourced material, and weighted it "duly" the second time. Generally the decision goes in favor of retaining properly weighted sourced material rather than deleting it because of unstated rationales. Thank you for your consideration. JJB 14:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

One of the problems, as I see it, is that the article is not about a seven-day week, which has its own article, but about the special status of the Shabbat in the Jewish weekly cycle. In that respect it is a particular issue, not open to a full discussion whether it is appropriate to have those observances, etc. or whether other cultures have other customs etc. As to whether material is sourced or not is immaterial, because it should still fit into the subject matter and scope of an article, not go off on a tangent.Ewawer (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Now it's my turn to have trouble comprehending. But I think it's appropriate for this article to document how Shabbat came to have special status in the Jewish weekly cycle (and that may involve history that predates the Jewish people). This article has long had a "Biblical source" section, but that section is what WP calls an in-universe description, and is several paragraphs of promotion of only the fundamentalist, literal view (which I happen to hold)— except in the case of people who already have a nonliteral interpretation of the words anyway. The Biblical source needs to be balanced by the other views, and I originally did so in that section, but a separate section is fine. Some of the Biblical source section should be condensed and moved to my new spinout Biblical Sabbath anyway.

If a paragraph on some custom's origins actually succeded in opening a new discussion on the appropriateness of the observances, the custom must be pretty weak. Shabbat is very strong. Similarly, the relationship of Shabbat to other observances is appropriate to touch on, insofar as it sheds light on Shabbat itself and does not create a WP:COATRACK to cover up other, unduly weighted Sabbath views. So I must reject the idea that these points are tangential. The whole cluster of Sabbath articles has suffered long from delineation errors, and that is what we are all about resolving. Each article should focus on all aspects relevant to its particular Sabbatical observance, including its origin and its place among other Sabbatical observances. And my paragraph is not about origin of a seven-day week but origin of Shabbat itself. Now that there is a much better scheme for segregating other observances into their own articles, your concern about tangents has a ready-made solution: true tangents move to their own extant articles. Thank you also for your other improvements, but please watch out for grammar errors. JJB 00:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

International date line

We simply must cover the international date line debate, which is highly relevant from various perspectives, and one of the great debates in modern halacha. This should be either in this article or in a separate split-off. JFW | T@lk 13:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Three stars

Can you elaborate more on how the end-of-Sabbath line is drawn? Three stars as end-of-Sabbath - are they specific named stars or just any stars? What happens on cloudy, starless nights? Polar nights? TIA, NVO (talk) 19:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Three stars is symbolic. Shabbat is over when it is dark enough to see several stars. It doesn't matter which ones. Anyway, the rabbis figure out the exact "end of Shabbat" times a year in advance, and all Jewish calendars supply that information, so you don't actually have to look for the stars. And, as you say, it could be cloudy.--Gilabrand (talk) 16:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion??

Should there be a bit of discussion? for example these beliefs are accepted as historic artefacts from a different era - like those concerning safe eating in the desert, clean feet etc. It would add balance to the article to find references to some discussions on the relevance of this stuff to modern life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.48.235 (talk) 16:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Serious question: not likely worthy of mention in article though

this line

Shabbat is the seventh day of the Jewish week and a day of rest in Judaism. Shabbat is observed from sundown Friday until the appearance of three stars in the sky on Saturday night. The exact time, therefore, differs from week to week and from place to place, depending on the time of sunset at each location.

What are the rules north of the arctic circle, if it is night time always, or conversly day time always. Seems like a dumb question but if there is an actual rule for such a sitiuation it may be informative in the article. I really doubt there is an actual rule for this. Smitty1337 (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting question. I found this site that addresses the question rather extensively. From a quick skim, one recommendation is that Jews in those areas observe the shabbat times of the location they were in before traveling north of the Arctic Circle. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:08, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Guess my question isnt as dumb as i thought lol Jewish law in the polar regions google found me a wiki article on it....imma go link it here after i read it and make sure its relevent.Smitty1337 (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Adaptations

I've removed this para from the article because it's both untrue and unsourced:

The principle of weekly Sabbath has also been adopted, instituted, or modified in other beliefs: compare the Babylonian calendar, the Buddhist uposatha, the Islamic jumu'ah, the pagan sabbat, the Bahá'í calendar, the Unification Church Ahn Shi Il, and the parody-religion Pastafarian weekend.

I don't know about all of these religions, but I do know it's untrue for the Babylonians and Buddhists. Buddhists don't give any particular note to Sundays or to any other day of the week. As for the Babylon, the influence works the other way round - it was the Jews who adopted Sabbath-observance from the Babylonians. The whole thing is unsourced in any case. Either find sources for each of these, or leave it out. PiCo (talk) 02:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. The sources are in the individual articles, of which this is a summary. Your bald assertion of who adopted Sabbath from whom is not backed up by those sources. Further, the Buddhist case is a lunar week (usually 7 or 8 days), also related to early Sabbath. Your statement "I do know it's untrue" is not any more sourced than the text you deleted. Also, please don't repeat your deleting (and imbalancing the POV, toward Judeo-Christian in this case) when another party undoes it: that is contrary to WP:BRD recommendations and is also considered warring. On this article I'll wait to see who else chimes in. JJB 02:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

JJB, the Buddhist cycle isn't based on 7 days, it's based on the phases of the moon - full moon, new moon, and half way between. A 7 day cycle, in contrast, gives exactly 28 days, which means it soon gets out of sync with the lunar cycle (which has 28.25 days). Lunar cycles are based on the fact that the moon is there in the sky - everyone all over the world can see and use it, and they do; no connection with the biblical sabbath is needed, and there's no question of it being an adaptation by one culture from another. As for the babylonian connection, that's in the literature - I think you need to read more widely. PiCo (talk) 03:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You have just said that the Biblical mathematical week was adopted from the Babylonian lunar week, and also that the lunar week is unquestionably unrelated to the mathematical week. You have also just said that the lunation of 29.53+ days is actually 28.25 days. JJB 03:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)